Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Hightown Housing Association Limited (202102411)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102411

Hightown Housing Association Limited

19 November 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The leaseholder complains about the landlord’s response to his concerns about a staff member.

Background

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy as was in place at the time of the matters complained about sets out a three-stage process:
    1. At the Early Resolution stage, it would provide a response within 10 working days.
    2. At stage one, a Senior Manager would respond within 10 working days.
    3. At stage two, a Director or the Chief Executive would respond within 15 working days.

Summary of events

  1. On 10 September 2020 the leaseholder complained that the landlord’s Projects Manager attended an inspection at his property that had taken place that day, despite it having been agreed with the landlord’s Chief Executive and the leaseholder’s MP at a meeting in March 2020, that they would not.
  2. On 15 September 2020 the landlord sent an ‘early stage’ response to the leaseholder. It said that the Projects Manager attended to confirm that the inspection was going ahead, spoke briefly to the leaseholder and the inspector, and once they became aware that the inspection was going to take most of the day, left. They did not enter the property or take part in the inspection.
  3. The leaseholder responded that same day stating that the landlord had agreed during a meeting with his MP in March 2020 that the Projects Manager would have no involvement in the inspection. He stated ‘Yet he sat outside for 3 hours then approached the house and inspector. Why was he sent other than to intimidate us. Hightown could have sent anyone of there many staff yet decided to send [the Projects Manager]?’ The leaseholder asked that the complaint be escalated.
  4. A stage one response was sent on 30 September 2020 from the Director of Development. In this they said that the Projects Manager visited the property to confirm that the inspection was going ahead. As a matter of courtesy, the Projects Manager spoke briefly to the leaseholder and the inspector, and when they realised that the inspection was going to take most of the day they left. At no point did they enter the property or take part in the inspection. As part of the investigation the Director had asked the Chief Executive whether there had been an agreement that the Projects Manager would not attend (the Chief Executive had no recollection of this).
  5. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the matter, the Chief Executive provided a stage two response to the complaint dated 21 October 2020. In this they said that they had reviewed the follow-up to the meeting that occurred with the leaseholder’s MP, and found no record of an agreement that a member of staff would not attend the inspection. The Chief Executive said ‘I am clear that at no time did I agree that [the Projects Manager] would not attend the site visit….’ The letter concluded that the Projects Manager was the most appropriate member of staff to attend the property, with the purpose of ensuring that the inspection took place as arranged. The letter concluded ‘I am sorry if you feel that this action was intimidating. I can assure you that was never our intention.’

Assessment and findings

  1. The leaseholder has explained that he is unhappy with the outcome of the matter as the landlord has disagreed with his complaint and would like it to apologise for the intimidation he felt. He would also like an explanation of the Project Manager’s actions after the Chief Executive agreed with the MP that they would not attend the property on 10 September 2020, and for the landlord to admit that it backtracked on this agreement.
  2. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
  3. In this case there is a discrepancy between the leaseholder’s recollection of events at the March 2020 meeting with the MP, and the landlord’s. As the Ombudsman was not present at the meeting, and contemporaneous minutes of the meeting have not been provided, it is not possible for this investigation to determine exactly what was agreed. However, it can consider the landlord’s response to the complaint and whether this was reasonable and fair.
  4. The initial response was provided in good time, in line with the complaint policy timeframes. The stage one response was slightly late, but was provided by a Director, a more senior staff member than was stipulated by the complaint policy.
  5. The Chief Executive was asked if there had been an agreement that the Projects Manager would not attend, and in addition, the evidence available to this Service shows that the landlord obtained a statement from the Projects Manager about events on 10 September 2020 and their reasons for the visit. The Ombudsman is satisfied that in raising the leaseholder’s concerns with both the staff members involved, the landlord has demonstrated that it was ‘following fair process’ and taking the leaseholder’s concerns seriously.
  6. Having said this, the Project Manager’s reason for visiting as set out in their statement (to ensure that the inspector knew the background of the visit and to obtain a debrief once the inspection was finished) was not quite in line with the reason given in the complaint response (ensuring that the inspection took place as arranged). In the interest of resolving the leaseholder’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided this fuller explanation in its response to the complaint, which would have offered an answer to the leaseholder’s query about the Projects Manager waiting outside for a long time: To obtain a debrief.
  7. The stage two response was provided in good time by the Chief Executive, who stated that they had not agreed at any time that the Projects Manager would not visit, but offered apologies if the leaseholder had found this visit intimidating. This was ‘fair’ and shows that despite not identifying any service failures, the landlord took action to ‘put things right’ by apologising.
  8. It is understandable that if the leaseholder understood that it had been agreed that the Projects Manager would not attend the inspection, he felt aggrieved when they arrived. However, there is no indication from either the landlord or the leaseholder himself that the Projects Manager took part, or even attempted to take part in the inspection itself. This investigation cannot come to any conclusions on the leaseholder’s assertion that the Projects Manager’s attendance was a deliberate attempt to intimidate him, however it was reasonable given the evidence available, that the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder’s concerns and apologised that he felt that way.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Section 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s complaint about the staff member.

Reasons

  1. It is not possible for this investigation to determine which version of events is correct in relation to what was agreed at the March 2020 meeting with the MP. However, the landlord’s investigation into this matter was reasonable, as was its conclusion that it could not uphold the complaint.
  2. The landlord responded appropriately and fairly to the leaseholder’s concerns, provided an explanation as to why the Project Manager visited, and apologised that the leaseholder felt this to be intimidating.